Inequality it would seem, is the new buzz word in Britain. Scarcely a day passes without someone, somewhere, talking, or writing about it. For example, a new think tank calling itself The Centre for Labour and Social Studies (CLASS) aims to shape government policy on issues such as social inequality. On its website, it argues that "…inequality weakens social cohesion and a sense of community, and produces more crime and violence" before adding that "…less equal societies tend to do worse when it comes to health, education and general well-being." Conclusion? "The pursuit of equality is not just a moral imperative, not just vital for the poor and for the social cohesion and wellbeing of society, it is also necessary for a stable economy." In this context, "…Class seeks to shape ideas that can inspire the trade union movement, cement a broad alliance of social forces and influence policy development to ensure the political agenda is on the side of working people."

The first thing to point out is that the ideas of CLASS are at root, a reflection of material reality; namely the inability of the British capitalist system to distribute its socially produced wealth in anything like an optimum manner. The whole purpose of capitalism is not to meet the material and cultural needs of the majority. On the contrary, its purpose is to exploit the labour-power of working people in order to produce ever greater sums of surplus value for a minority of property-owning capitalists and their lackeys (by 'property-owning' I mean those exercising decisive control over the material means of production and distribution). This is why millions of people in Britain go to bed hungry each night despite the existence of food a-plenty; this is why we have to initiate on a yearly basis, a charitable whip-round for needy children despite being one of the richest nations on earth; this is why income disparities among and between working people are so obscene; this is why millions of Britons are left on the scrap heap because it is not profitable to employ them; this is why thousands loose their lives fighting foreign wars on behalf of capitalist politicians. The collective assumption made by CLASS is that some form of compromise or collaboration can ultimately be arrived at between the antagonistic interests of workers and capitalists when it comes to issues of wage / salary levels, job creation and the like. This 'collaboration' might be realised by way of persuasive moral argument, political struggle or a mixture of both. Those involved with CLASS therefore, are not interested in transforming capitalist property relations per se. Rather, they wish to 'influence policy development' within the framework of capitalism itself.

Such a collective rounding on social inequality by academics, union leaders, journalists and the like is of course, most welcome, not to mention long overdue. However, in my view such noble aims are unlikely to succeed in any meaningful way. This is because the aims in question are largely one-sided and superficial. Above all, and while much is said about visible cases of social inequality, little or nothing is said about the underlying private ownership of the material means of production, the exploitation of paid labour in pursuit of surplus value, the contradiction between social production and private appropriation, the capitalistic substance of Britain's Parliamentary form etc…etc. If we ignore, or else fail to recognise this underlying reality which can never be separated from visible social inequalities for one moment, then any struggle to rid Britain of such ills will at best, be limited. Take as one example the ongoing battle in all capitalist societies to varying degrees on issues of equal pay. Women in particular have for many decades now, asserted the right to receive an average level of pay which equates to that of their male counterparts. Yet these and similar claims for equality of income are never extended to include the minority capitalist class. It's a case of equal pay for everyone in capitalist society except the capitalists. The latter can earn what they like! Similarly, equality in the eyes of the law is fine on paper, yet as the sentences meted out to last year's rioters in London clearly demonstrate, it's one kind of equality for the rich and another for the not-so-rich or absolutely down-trodden. Or what about equality of opportunity? Again, under conditions of capitalism this boils down to the maxim that everyone should have the right and opportunity to exploit everyone else. Then there is the tendency once again discernible in all capitalist polities of the ongoing concentration and centralisation of wealth with all this implies regarding uneven and unequal development (and thus social inequalities) throughout society as a whole. Again, the pursuit of political equality within one or other capitalist country is fine, as long as the private ownership of the material means of production and distribution is never questioned or threatened.

Social inequality then, is a real, observable phenomenon throughout the developed world. Many human beings are now rightly troubled by it and think it proper to challenge such glaring disparities. Millions of working people in Britain no doubt welcome the highlighting and challenging of these social ills, not least those who are unemployed. However, any attempt to challenge social inequality in Britain while simultaneously remaining uncritical of, or else indifferent to the underlying reality giving rise to it, is likely to achieve little in practice. It is precisely this underlying reality which must be challenged and transformed. In practice, this means engaging in the political struggle to transform capitalism into that of socialism, and thereafter, to communism. A struggle to establish a form of human association in which the end good is realised in something one does rather than something one gets. A society in which the material means of producing and distributing the necessities of life are socially owned, rather than being at the whim and control of a minority of private interests as is currently the case. Then, instead of socially producing for a minority of exploiters with all this implies regarding inequalities of some or other kind, the whole purpose of social activity will be directed to satisfying the material and cultural needs of everyone.

Submit Your Review for Social Inequality Is Not One-Sided
Required fields are marked with (*).Your e-mail address will not be displayed.